University Honors

Public higher education in the United States has undergone a structural transformation: a massive transfer of costs from the state to the student. While the economic dimensions of this ìcost-shiftî are well documented, the political communication techniques utilized to legitimize this withdrawal remain under-analyzed. This capstone project tests the hypothesis that austerity policies were aligned with a measurable shift in executive rhetoric. Using a mixed-methods design, this study introduces the Negative Metaphor Density Index (NMDI), a quantitative metric developed to measure the saturation of ìmarket-basedî and ìburdenî framing in gubernatorial discourse. A comparative analysis of eight U.S. states (N = 8) reveals a strong, statistically significant inverse relationship between negative rhetorical density and per-capita funding levels (Spearman r = ?0.714, p < .05). Robustness checks using Correlates of State Policy Project (CSPP) unemployment data (p = 0.547) and a Wilcoxon rank-sum test for political party (p = 0.685) suggest that this association is not explained by economic conditions or partisan affiliation alone. Linear regression patterns are consistent with the idea that rhetoric can function as an early signal of retrenchment: states like Florida that adopted a ìTaxpayer Burdenî narrative experienced sharper funding declines than states like California, which maintained a ìPublic Goodî framing. These findings challenge the assumption that budget cuts were purely economic inevitabilities, pointing instead to an agenda-setting strategy that recast the public university as a private commodity. Ultimately, this project provides a critical historical baseline, suggesting that contemporary debates over tuition and student debt continue to echo this earlier rhetorical shift.